ObjectivesSocial prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness.Setting/data sourcesNine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only.ParticipantsSystematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services.ResultsWe included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions.ConclusionsSocial prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost.Trial registration numberPROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.

BackgroundSocial network analysis (SNA) has been widely used across a range of disciplines but is most commonly applied to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of decision making processes in commercial organisations. We are utilising SNA to inform the development and implementation of tailored behaviour-change interventions to improve the uptake of evidence into practice in the English National Health Service. To inform this work, we conducted a systematic scoping review to identify and evaluate the use of SNA as part of an intervention to support the implementation of change in healthcare settings.Methods and FindingsWe searched ten bibliographic databases to October 2011. We also searched reference lists, hand searched selected journals and websites, and contacted experts in the field. To be eligible for the review, studies had to describe and report the results of an SNA performed with healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors, nurses, pharmacists, radiographers etc.) and others involved in their professional social networks. We included 52 completed studies, reported in 62 publications. Almost all of the studies were limited to cross sectional descriptions of networks; only one involved using the results of the SNA as part of an intervention to change practice.ConclusionsWe found very little evidence for the potential of SNA being realised in healthcare settings. However, it seems unlikely that networks are less important in healthcare than other settings. Future research should seek to go beyond the merely descriptive to implement and evaluate SNA-based interventions.

Theories occupy different positions in the scientific circle of enquiry as they vary in scope, abstraction, and complexity. Mid-range theories play a crucial bridging role between raw empirical observations and all-encompassing grand-theoretical schemes. A shift of perspective from ‘theories’ as products to ‘theorising’ as a process can enable empirical researchers to capitalise on the two-way relationships between empirical data and different levels of theory and contribute to the advancement of knowledge. This can be facilitated by embracing theoretically informative (in addition to merely theoretically informed) research, developing mechanism-based explanations, and broadening the repertoire of grand-theoretical orientations.

BackgroundAddressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.MethodsWe searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.ConclusionsThere are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Deploying knowledge brokers to bridge the ‘gap’ between researchers and practitioners continues to be seen as an unquestionable enabler of evidence-based practice and is often endorsed uncritically. We explore the ‘dark side’ of knowledge brokering, reflecting on its inherent challenges which we categorize as: (1) tensions between different aspects of brokering; (2) tensions between different types and sources of knowledge; and (3) tensions resulting from the ‘in-between’ position of brokers. As a result of these tensions, individual brokers may struggle to maintain their fragile and ambiguous intermediary position, and some of the knowledge may be lost in the ‘in-between world’, whereby research evidence is transferred to research users without being mobilized in their day-to-day practice. To be effective, brokering requires an amalgamation of several types of knowledge and a multidimensional skill set that needs to be sustained over time. If we want to maximize the impact of research on policy and practice, we should move from deploying individual ‘brokers’ to embracing the collective process of ‘brokering’ supported at the organizational and policy levels.

ObjectivesTo assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK.DesignRapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process.Results17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme.Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5–3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting.ConclusionsThere is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.

BackgroundCollaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs.MethodsFifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsTwenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable.ConclusionsMuch of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why.Trial registrationPROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42016042945).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0805-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 affects all of us and is associated with rapid and massive changes in healthcare and societies. As a response, a range of interventions for patients and populations have been implemented in health and preventive settings, or need to be implemented in the short and long term. Implementation science offers a multidisciplinary perspective and systematic approach for the design, evaluation and analysis of programmes and policies to enhance implementation. The emergence of Covid-19 provides an urgent need to develop new perspectives and approaches in implementation science, such as the addition of innovative and rigorous approaches to the collection, use and analysis of 'real-world' data. Above all, we hope that implementation scientists will focus on what they can contribute to manage Covid-19 and its consequences for people, healthcare and society. BackgroundsSARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 (further: Covid-19) has affected many of us, including loved ones, colleagues, clinicians and most particularly vulnerable people such as the elderly and people with chronic disease. The emergence of Covid-19 is associated with major changes in human behaviours, institutions and societies, compressed in time and replicated rapidly throughout the globe. Research evidence to guide the direction of these changes is quickly evolving, yet decision-makers face major uncertainties. The sustainability of the changes, given the lack of infrastructure to support them, is questionable. This is made more challenging by the growing realization of their huge negative economic impacts. The health sector has been turbulent in most societies for many years, but this up-ending of the sector creates chaotic conditions that merge both behaviour change and economic uncertainties, for a threatening environment. The extent of the chaos brings some seeds of opportunity, and implementation science may be primed to act in the current and future environments.